In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe

wrote
on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that all
starlight
| DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?

Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.

Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
moving at a speed different from c?

Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Also, if lightspeed is *not* c, what is it? Does it have
dependence on wavelength? Frequency? Such would not be
consistent with other experiments. If the difference
is wide enough one would also expect to see rather
interesting fringing effects while observing Saturn's
moons, for example.

And then there's the issue with supernovas. AIUI,
they are routinely observed in other galaxies. I rather
doubt supernovas can be consistently explained with giant
orbiting planets.


In this experimental measurement you have in
mind, what was the distance and the observed transit
time?

You do know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?

You do know what "speed" means, and how it
is measured, right?

Speed is simply v = d/t in Androcles' world. The
more sophisticated of us can use other expressions;
for example, v = sqrt(2 KE/m) might work in a Newtonian
universe, or
v = sqrt(g * r) if one knows one has a circular orbit,
v = nu * lambda for *any* wave (including light),
or
v = c * sqrt(1 - (lambda/lambda_0)^2) / sqrt(1 + (lambda/lambda_0)^2)
v = c * sqrt(1 - (nu_0/nu)^2) / sqrt(1 + (nu_0/nu)^2)
or v = c * sqrt(1 - 1/gamma^2) in an Einsteinian universe.

One could even use v = sqrt(2gh), where g is the acceleration
of gravity and h the height of the ball.

Depends on what's known.


Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
moving at a speed different from c?

- Randy


--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| :
| On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| starlight
| | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Of course other experiments are not consistent with
| that result, and I was under the impression that rather
| sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
| frequency have precluded speed differences.



Name these other crank experiments then we can all examine them,
don't handwave.

|
| Also, if lightspeed is *not* c, what is it?


Distance /time, of course. Time is invariant. If time is *not* invariant,
what is it?


| Does it have
| dependence on wavelength?

Yes.

| Frequency?

No.

| Such would not be consistent with other experiments.

Name these other crank experiments then we can all examine them,
don't handwave.



| If the difference
| is wide enough one would also expect to see rather
| interesting fringing effects while observing Saturn's
| moons, for example.
|

If it was wide enough, else you wouldn't.
It isn't wide enough so you don't.


| And then there's the issue with supernovas. AIUI,
| they are routinely observed in other galaxies. I rather
| doubt supernovas can be consistently explained with giant
| orbiting planets.
|

Novae can and have been routinely observed in other galaxies.
You wouldn't know a nova from a supernova anyway, you rather doubt it.


|
| In this experimental measurement you have in
| mind, what was the distance and the observed transit
| time?
|
| You do know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?
|
| You do know what "speed" means, and how it
| is measured, right?
|
| Speed is simply v = d/t in Androcles' world.

Yeah, I live in the real world.


| The
| more sophisticated of us can use other expressions;
| for example, v = sqrt(2 KE/m) might work in a Newtonian
| universe,

At least in my more sophisticated world I don't measure 7 TeV
BEFORE the LHC is operational, whereas in your more sophisticated
world world time machines are already operational, you can go forward
to 2010, measure it and bring back the result to 2008.


or
| v = sqrt(g * r) if one knows one has a circular orbit,
| v = nu * lambda for *any* wave (including light),
| or
| v = c * sqrt(1 - (lambda/lambda_0)^2) / sqrt(1 + (lambda/lambda_0)^2)
| v = c * sqrt(1 - (nu_0/nu)^2) / sqrt(1 + (nu_0/nu)^2)
| or v = c * sqrt(1 - 1/gamma^2) in an Einsteinian universe.
|
But in an Einsteinian universe
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in YOUR theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- Albert Einstein, chief crank sci-fi author.

What part are you playing, physically? Puck in a "Midsummer Night's Dream?
Oh wait, you are a ghost well suited to Hamlet's father, physically.

| One could even use v = sqrt(2gh), where g is the acceleration
| of gravity and h the height of the ball.
|
| Depends on what's known.

Well, see, it takes a normal man about 4 hours to walk the 27 km around
the LHC back to where he started, and two normal men walking in opposite
directions about...hmmm... about 4 hours also, covering 54km between them,
meeting in the middle.
|-------------------------|------------------------|
27 km 27 km


That's about 7 km/hr.

If one man stands still and the other man walks the entire
54 km in 4 hours then he must be running.
|---------------------------------------------------|
54 km

That's about 14 km/hour

although I can't distinguish a velocity from a closing rate
as Poe has told me. Apparently it is something to do with third frames
and observers, though why it should has me confused. The third
observer should mind his own ****in' business AFAICT.

Maybe the LHC has a diameter that is only half the diameter of the LHC
and 14 km/hr is only 7 km/hr.

You reckon I should crash one man into the other to find the speed, huh?
You wouldn't happen to be ****in' insane, would you?

On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe

wrote
on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
:



On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that all
starlight
| DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?

Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.

Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
moving at a speed different from c?

Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Right. Or either one might have any speed at
all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.

c = lambda*f

If all you have is lambda, c might be any
(positive) value at all.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Correct again.

Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
hypotheses:

(1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
us how light from the stars behaves.

(2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
light from the stars obeys different rules which
can never be reproduced on earth.

Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.

Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
you always observe in the laboratory, but for
starlight it isn't true."

Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
of the speed of light results in c. Androcles
would claim that Ockham's principle says, "Light
from the stars moves at speeds different from c,
but that is due to magical principles that you
will never reproduce in the laboratory."

Also, if lightspeed is *not* c, what is it? Does it have
dependence on wavelength? Frequency? Such would not be
consistent with other experiments. If the difference
is wide enough one would also expect to see rather
interesting fringing effects while observing Saturn's
moons, for example.

And then there's the issue with supernovas. AIUI,
they are routinely observed in other galaxies. I rather
doubt supernovas can be consistently explained with giant
orbiting planets.

In this experimental measurement you have in
mind, what was the distance and the observed transit
time?

You do know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?

You do know what "speed" means, and how it
is measured, right?

Speed is simply v = d/t in Androcles' world.

That's what I had in mind when I say direct
measurement. Measure a transit time over a measured
distance.

The
more sophisticated of us can use other expressions;
for example, v = sqrt(2 KE/m) might work in a Newtonian
universe, or
v = sqrt(g * r) if one knows one has a circular orbit,
v = nu * lambda for *any* wave (including light),
or
v = c * sqrt(1 - (lambda/lambda_0)^2) / sqrt(1 + (lambda/lambda_0)^2)
v = c * sqrt(1 - (nu_0/nu)^2) / sqrt(1 + (nu_0/nu)^2)
or v = c * sqrt(1 - 1/gamma^2) in an Einsteinian universe.

But these require additional assumptions and also
aren't useful for light.

However, Androcles did offer a useful alternative
to d/t, which was lambda*f. Unfortunately, he
thinks that it's still a "direct measurement" even
when you're just guessing at one of the quantities
in the equation.

One could even use v = sqrt(2gh), where g is the acceleration
of gravity and h the height of the ball.

Depends on what's known.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| :
|
|
|
| On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| starlight
| | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
|
| c = lambda*f
|
| If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| (positive) value at all (,)
ELSE you can calculate c' from Doppler's lambda' = lamda * c'/c.

Of course an idiot crank like you will have never heard of Doppler.

On Mar 25, 11:11 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine| wrote:

| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| :
|
|
|
| On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| starlight
| | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
|
| c = lambda*f
|
| If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| (positive) value at all (,)
ELSE you can calculate c' from Doppler's lambda' = lamda * c'/c.

Of course an idiot crank like you will have never heard of Doppler.

That would fall under "other knowledge gained from
experiment", which I specifically excluded. Is this
that language barrier thing again?

But there again you've replaced measurement with
a calculation based on assumption. And again,
it's an assumption that starlight obeys different
laws than electromagnetic radiation in any
experiment on earth, which again violates
Sir William's principle that you are so fond of.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 25, 11:11 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine|
wrote:
|
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
| |
| | wrote
| | on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| | :
| |
| |
| |
| | On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
| | "Randy Poe" wrote in message
| |
| |
|
...
| | | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact
that
| all
| | starlight
| | | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| | |
| | | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | | moving at a speed different from c?
| |
| | Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
| |
| | Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| | definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| | going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
| |
| | Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| | all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
| |
| | c = lambda*f
| |
| | If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| | (positive) value at all (,)
| ELSE you can calculate c' from Doppler's lambda' = lamda * c'/c.
|
| Of course an idiot crank like you will have never heard of Doppler.
|
| That would fall under "other knowledge gained from
| experiment", which I specifically excluded. Is this
| that language barrier thing again?

Huh? What did you say? I have to exclude my knowledge of language
gained from experimenting as a child. Please communicate using sign
language and point to what you want, saying "ga-ga, baa" and we'll
experiment all over again.

On the other hand you could use English to describe the experiment that
led to:
'the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires to travel from B to A' in all frames of reference because I SAY SO.
-- Shaman Albert Einstein.
I'd like to repeat it if possible, then I could derive gamma.

But there again you've replaced measurement with
a calculation based on assumption, haven't you, ****head?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:

On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Right. Or either one might have any speed at
all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.

What experiment might that be?

c = lambda*f

If all you have is lambda, c might be any
(positive) value at all.

'c' is a universal constant.
Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Correct again.

What experiments might that be?

Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
hypotheses:

(1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
us how light from the stars behaves.

(2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
light from the stars obeys different rules which
can never be reproduced on earth.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.

Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
you always observe in the laboratory, but for
starlight it isn't true."

Please define 'frequency of light'.

Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
of the speed of light results in c.

.....that's because the source is always at rest.....so one would expect the
answer to be c.

Androcles
would claim that Ockham's principle says, "Light
from the stars moves at speeds different from c,
but that is due to magical principles that you
will never reproduce in the laboratory."

Nothing magical...just plain basic physics....about which you know nothing.

You do know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?

You do know what "speed" means, and how it
is measured, right?

Speed is simply v = d/t in Androcles' world.

That's what I had in mind when I say direct
measurement. Measure a transit time over a measured
distance.

hahahaha!
Do the sums, moron Poe....for a moving source.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

/On Mar 24, 10:45*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 24, 10:33 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
| ....
| | On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| | "Randy Poe" wrote in message
| |
| |
....
| | | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| | starlight
| | | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| | |
| | | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | | moving at a speed different from c?
| |
| | Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| You know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?
| |
| | You do know what "speed" means, and how it
| | is measured, right?
|
| Sure, distance/time, or the same thing, waveLENGTH * frequency,
| where frequency is 1/time. You do know f = 1/t, don't you?
|
| Sure, that would be an acceptable substitute.
|
| But most blue/red shift measurements give a value
| of wavelength only.

Oh, well, you can't find speed without both distance and time, Poe.
You do know what "speed" means, and how it is measured, right?

| If you want to calculate wavelength*frequency empirically,
| you're going to need both a wavelength and a frequency.

Of course.
Fortunately the frequency is known from the "stationary system"
measurement, t = d/c (or f = c/wavelength), from which c' = d'/t.
Hence any change in wavelength has a directly proportional change in
speed.
(t cannot alter, that is known to lead to paradox, the favourite boring
subject in sci.physics.relativity).

No matter how hard you pitch a mote or slug at a detector, it doesn't
linearly breach celerity, nor does its lihtwaves get there sooner. So
t must alter, or d and c leed to paradocsa.

But I will roast your fat retarded delusional head alive. You and
that God-awful Irish cretin pig-ox-ape scum Drew Carey. The fakethful
hoax-worshipping Irish are coinventors of the boor, hillbilly,
illiterar, cretin, and all other trash between Appalachia and the
Bible Belt--which should be under water, mud, and plagæ when I'm
throuh. But some nukes or a meteor would be neat--help us out,
Russija: Send some hydrogen bombs at Knoxville, Evansville, and every
other -ville http://dictionary.com/browse/villain, http://
dictionary.com/browse/vile. (There're a few good ones, but they
don't stop the others or move out, when they should.) Then ye can
take over Maryland and beslave them until they disvert and call their
state Mhuirnín. Georgians (Not by you, Russcik--in America), nitwitly
illiterate earthscum of the south who are too ****en retarded to even
say your state's name in Hellènic wriht nor can grasp what sounds G,
J, and Y and vowels make--nor can America, Britain, or Canada--pick
one: Be buried under dust, sea, or lava. Ye don't know what hot is;
in my town 2006 it was 115°F one day, 117°F in Sacramento, the
fulfilway of my thermodunamic predictrix/calendar (1859-2006, 21-year
tides, where I fand this trend 12*12 years after the epok). The sky
was weird and sparkly, and all of the watter I had was soon in the
room and I almost pasd out.

-Aut
Let World War III (That's "ee-ee-ee".) be a Civil one. Racial/
National/Fidelial holocausts are lik wildfires: They break out and
clearcut from everyone when the state is too blind and lazy to stub
its own. If your mind is in the topmost sixth, quell every law and
person in your way. The botmost sixth in every nation shall be
slauhter; the next sixth shall be slaves for all. Refugees should
disvert and take this witstest first, where everyone else should
follow:

1. Tell how a mirror flips one's likeness one way but not the other,
without weirdness.

2. Tell how a set of gears boosts or brakes a lone gear's speed, and
where the speed comes from.

3. Write perfect transliterations between the Latin, English,
Hellènic, Hibiru, and Thewdish words and names in everyday use, staffr-
(letter)-for-staffr and sound-for-sound. Begin with your fainer
books.

4. Pick out at least two verses in the Vivli to show Krist was a liar.

Those who don't pass this test--that would be nearly all of mankind--
may not breed (spay and geld them), teach or rear (if with kids, chide
first), or speak on TV (This is where most of my wretchedness bears.)
or sell in mass media. Everyone who wears manners over matters shall
get a chiding or a beatdown--which is not a "beetdaln".

On Mar 24, 2:40*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
Oops. You were talking about an experiment from a
moving source. So you don't have a measurement of the
frequency of the moving source.

The only known and reliable measurements from moving sources are brightness
curves of variable stars.

why? Answer my first post, dumbass.

Almost all can be attributed to their light being emitted at [c+vcos(t/T)] wrt
Earth.

Body-dependent celerity along with universal recession should mean the
Earth is awash in much-slow liht, about .7c to .1c. Where?

experiment where frequency and wavelength were measured
and multiplied to obtain a value of c.

That approach applies only to waves traveling in a medium.
Light is particulate.....and you are blind, indoctrinated and totally devoid of
any ability to think.

The whole univers is the medium; otherwise, there would be no matter
and no liht, which is not particulate at all.

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+liht+not-a-thing
http://google.com/groups?q=relativity-for-dummies

To do so would requi
* - a measurement of frequency
* - a measurement of wavelength
* - multiplying them together
* - obtaining a value of c.

The frequency of an oscillator such as a spinning wheel doesn't change with
observer movement. It has NO 'wavelength' so that cannot change either.

Its transverse wavespan is its diameter; its longitudinal wavespan is
its hemiperimeter; the proper waves, its wavespan and wavestint, may
not drift with the observer's movement, but its apparent waves will in
all respects under or over relativity or whatever your belief is.
Doppler effect, cretin.

The ABSOLUTE WAVELENGTH of a water wave doesn't change with boat speed. The
frequency at which wavecrests are negotiated changes.

The boat is above the watter; it doesn't run on the same watter waves
but on a watter spray which skips waves.

http://google.com/groups?q=sound-propelled+horns

Generally speaking, doppler shift of light is simillar to this and due to the
c+v effect.

Answer my first post or die.

-Aut

On Mar 25, 10:19*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
Its transverse wavespan is its diameter; its longitudinal wavespan is
its hemiperimeter; the proper waves, its wavespan and wavestint, may

should be perimeter